TravisMontgomery
New
I found this interesting and decided to link to it for anyone else who might be interested in it too..
http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com
http://www.thethirdwayofevolution.com
I look forward to seeing what sort of things show up at the site. I'm not completely convinced, since the home page has such crap as:
"The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems."
There is no need to state untruths to justify the goals of the site.
~~ Paul
No, that was a good thing. :) Otherwise it would just be another ID site. This has some promise. Well, unless you agree with Larry Moran, in which case the promises are already being delivered:Plus you were no doubt disappointed that Darwin's Doubt wasn't listed under the recommended Books section, right? ;-)
And natural selection does have amazing power. But the theory has moved on to include genetic drift, neutral theory, nearly neutral theory, epigenetics, gene transfer, sexual selection, and so on. It's disingenuous to say the theory of evolution = mutation + natural selection.Yes I think Natural selection happens but is given undue powers. Again even among physicalists this is an issue. Popular spokemen such ss Richard Dawkins have echoed the suggedtive problem solving of NS. It is touted as being the offsett to random mutation in a way.
And natural selection does have amazing power. But the theory has moved on to include genetic drift, neutral theory, nearly neutral theory, epigenetics, gene transfer, sexual selection, and so on. It's disingenuous to say the theory of evolution = mutation + natural selection.
What? I included natural selection among a list of aspects of evolution. Why would you say I equated it with evolution?Paul says.
This is just mixinging terms while misrepresenting the original statement with a strawman argument.And natural selection does have amazing power. But the theory has moved on to include genetic drift, neutral theory, nearly neutral theory, epigenetics, gene transfer, sexual selection, and so on. It's disingenuous to say the theory of evolution = mutation + natural selection.
You equating NS with evolution when it is an aspect of evolution. And sexual selection has obvious agency.
Where did I say I was only talking about natural selection? Are you sure you aren't blindly assuming that I agree with the original quote I included in post #3?Epigenetics and gene transfer? These seem to be just thrown in to make it sound nice. You can't just include them in and say look how powerful it is! You are no longer talking about NS! Epigenetics! Seriously!
This is the statement I said is false:You also seem to contradict youself Paul. You claim the statement that NS has been elevated to the position of creative problem solving to be false. An untruth. Yet you then imply that it does actually have that power. Amazing power as you call it. That ìs hypocrisy plain as day. Or maybe you believe it does have amazing power as you say, which only supports their statement as true. Which it certainly is.
Nor does the history of the gasoline engine in understanding how it works. That is, until you take a course and attempt to understand where the engine came from or figure out how it relates to a diesel engine or a Wankel.And as a noob working towards a biochemistry degree, I can say evolution is a minor, minor part of the study. It has no real relevance in understanding the workings of the cell.
"The other way is Neo-Darwinism, which has elevated Natural Selection into a unique creative force that solves all the difficult evolutionary problems."
Neo-Darwinism has not elevated natural selection into a unique creative force.
Then I said that natural selection has amazing power. It does. Nowhere did I say it was "creative."
You do notice the difference between "unique creative force" and "amazing power," right?What a funny fellow you are.
LS,
Any idea what guys like Shapiro think of the arguments made in Meyer's book(s), especially (1) Darwin's doubt about the fossil record, (2) the arguments he made about not enough time to form functional proteins, etc?